Thursday, November 15, 2012

Hope you can swim

Back in January, Vox Day posted this about the Costa Concordia cruise ship accident regarding the lack of  "women and children first" policy when it came to rescues:

This was not so much predictable as predicted. Women have methodically attacked the concept of male duty and honor through every possible means for the past ninety years, and now they are whining that they don't get special treatment simply because a ship happens to be sinking. Why, exactly, should any man "prioritize women, expectant mothers and children"? On what grounds can they be reasonably expected to do so, those outdated traditional grounds that the schools teach is hateful, sexist, and bigoted? 
Those big, burly crewmen shoving aside women as they prioritized their own escape should have been wearing t-shirts that said "this is what a feminist looks like". Enjoy the crash.
Unfortunately the reader comments are now gone due to a change in the commenting format for his blog. I had a couple of the comments saved. My apologies, I don't know which commenters to attribute them to but they need to be shared again.
If good women recognize that they are paying a cost, then they should make it vociferously clear that they are not a free rider on Team Woman. Unfortunately, most of even the good ones buy into the feminist ideology to some extent because they were steeped in it since kindergarten.
This commenter was asked how and to what end women can make it vociferously clear.
1. Refuse to tacitly accept anti-male statements in silence for the sake of social approval. 2. Refuse to support politicians who push anti-male policies.3. Refuse to avail yourself of the pro-female legal regime to the disadvantage of the men in your life.
To what end:
Women are very influenced by the opinion of other women. When you sit in silence as your friends talk about the evils of men and the need for more equality, you not only encourage them to spread the propaganda further, you help other women accept that propaganda as the truth. This is why women who stood up against feminism like Phyllis Schafly were so a) effective and b) loathed.

Women are not like men. In men, silence denotes disapproving rejection. In women, it denotes submissive acceptance.
 You'll know you're on your way to becoming an anti-feminism advocate by the names you get called by feminists, the loss of feminist friends, and the encouragement and appreciation you get from men who have recognized feminism's destruction.

You'll also be aware and disgusted by just how prevalent feminism and male bashing is. Television programs, commercials, the media,'ll see it everywhere.

I encourage you to break that silence. You're not alone. You're in the company of women who have had enough of the belittling of their husbands, sons, fathers, and brothers. Many who have lived feminism's betrayal. Some who previously bought the feminist lie and have now realized they are not happy, their stress level is high, their incomes are low, their relationships are broken and they suffer huge regrets. They've come to understand this notion of "women can do it all" is crap.

For those of you still holding on to the lie that women are just like men (thus implying there is no need for men), honestly ask yourself what your reaction would be if you were on the Costa Concordia. Would you have expected chivalry? Would you have looked to a man to hoist your child into a life boat? Would you have been disgusted by the captain of the ship making his way to a lifeboat before you could? Have you ever uttered the words "real men"? If you said yes to any of those questions, do you recognize your own cognitive dissonance?
Let's start making it vociferously clear that we are good women and not free riders on Team Woman. 


  1. Hmmm...this prompted me to think about where I am on the feminism spectrum. I have never called myself a feminist. I suffered through a Women's Studies class in my Freshman year of college (I was low on the totem pole to register for classes, the WS class was still open and fulfilled one of my lib ed requirements, so I thought, "well, how bad could it be?") Yeah. It was pretty much what you would expect. Horrible!

    On the other hand, I do consider myself a believer in equality. Not to the extent that I think men and women are the same, or interchangeable. But to the extent that I believe we should all have the same basic rights and should be treated fairly in the eyes of the law. (And I acknowledge that when it comes to custody/divorce cases, men are most definitely NOT treated fairly! And yes, I do speak out against that.)

    In regards to the cruise ship incident and how I would react had I been aboard. I honestly don't think I would have expected anyone to go out of their way to rescue me just because I'm a woman. Had someone done so, I would have been grateful, of course (and yes, I'd consider that person a "real" man and a hero), but I really don't think I would have expected it. I would, however, have been disgusted to see ANYONE stronger pushing the weaker out of the way. So yes, this would go for most men vs. women (since men are generally stronger)...but I would have been just as disgusted had I seen a healthy, strong woman push a child or elderly person out of the way. This goes double for the captain and crew as it's part of their JOB to ensure the safety of the passengers before their own. Hell, even at minimum wage retail jobs I've had, it was known that if there were a fire or some other emergency, our first priority was customer safety.

    So where do I see myself on the feminism scale? Decidedly "not feminist" if we're talking about Gloria Steinem style feminism. But I certainly wouldn't volunteer to give up my right to vote either.

  2. Do you vote the same way as your husband?

  3. For the most part, yes. We respect each other's privacy when it comes to voting, but we do discuss who/what we're voting on and usually compare notes afterwards anyway.

    I'm guessing your point is my vote is "redundant" (or in cases where we differ, that we "cancel each other out.") Perhaps that could be argued, but if I were unmarried, or if my husband died, who would speak for me then? If you say my brother or my father, please keep in mind that many people do not necessarily agree with their family of origin's political beliefs. I picked my husband, I have no say over who my father or brother is. Regardless, as an adult citizen of this country, I believe should have the right to speak for myself either way.

    I take my right to vote very seriously and I do my research. I know many other people (both men and women) do not. The irresponsibility of others does not negate my right to vote.

  4. Do you consider yourself Christian?

  5. To be completely honest, I have been questioning my faith for some time. I was raised Christian and I wouldn't consider myself any other religion (or non-religion) at this time...but I do not currently participate in any organized religion or church.

    Still, had I answered yes, would that give you moral authority over me? Especially considering you do not know which denomination or biblical interpretation I adhere to?

  6. If you consider yourself a Christian, wives are called to be in submission to their husbands. When not married, they are called to be in submission to their fathers until married. This calling is actually for women's protection. We don't need to have a huge theological discussion, however recall SD mentioned the church being another place that feminism has infiltrated.

    If you prefer to have the discussion at a secular level, I would ask you where you think this right to vote comes from and what it benefits you by being able to vote? Ultimately, what is the goal of government?

  7. I understand what the Bible says about submission, but like many things in the Bible, this can be interpreted to extreme. If, for example, one's father is an abusive drug addict, should this man always be respected and/or obeyed? Not all men are noble. We must also look at the times we live in. If a woman is unmarried, 35 years old and supporting herself, must she be "looked after" as if she were a child? As far as how all of that pertains to voting, I'm not sure. I am aware that many interpret the Bible as asserting the authority of men over women in spiritual matters "Women should keep quiet in church" (my bad paraphrase, I am obviously no Bible scholar), but I don't recall passages in which this notion is applied to civic or secular matters. But yes, I agree that we don't need to get too off topic here.

    My right to vote, of course, comes from the passing of the 19th amendment. There was enough consensus among the people (and their elected powers that be) to recognize that women (like former slaves and others previously denied the right to vote) should, as citizens, have the same right to participate in the choosing of their leaders as any other citizen. I benefit the same way you do, to have my voice heard and my vote counted. And like you, sometimes my candidates win, sometimes they lose. But win or lose, at least I have a say in the matter.

    The goal of government...that's a big question and it depends on what kind of government we're talking about and who's in charge. In the United States, I would say the preamble says it better than I could: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"

    I have a feeling you're going to argue this matter on the "domestic tranquility" point now. Am I right? :-)

  8. I don't think you do understand what the Bible says. It doesn't say be submissive if... It says be submissive in all things (all things means voting too) and God will bless you for it. Nobility is not a qualifier to what God says. Widows and orphans are a special situation in the Bible as well that men are called to support and take care of. A 35 year old woman living on her own often does need support from a man. It's usually in the form of a job.

    So you claim your right to vote comes from government. If that is the only place it comes from and it isn't some type of inalienable right, then who gets to vote or not is completely dependent on the choice of the government. This is exactly where feminists stepped in and decided to take the reins of government. It was expeditious of the socialist mindset politicians to give women the right to vote in order to create overarching social programs that women would vote for. This is what led to SSI, free government food, and the CC camps. The beginnings of the handout mentality.

    That was when our government went from ensuring liberty to promising security. You can't have one AND the other. I have written before that the purpose of government should be about securing liberty and that doesn't necessarily mean voting rights. Socrates had a lot to say about the evil that is democracy. We are seeing its fruits today. Mob rule necessarily limits liberty.

  9. So God will bless me if I obey my father who tells me to go murder someone? Extreme example, I know...but it's hard for me to believe that God would not want a woman to use her own (God-given) judgement in certain situations. I used the example of a 35 year old woman because I thought we would agree that it would be silly for someone like that to still be dependent on (and thus submissive to) her father if she were supporting herself.

    A woman's right to vote came from the government, yes, but (at least in the US, back then) that means ultimately from the people...the very place a man's right to vote came from. For much of human history, NO ONE had the right to vote for their leaders. It was not ANYONE'S inalienable right. Democracy is imperfect, yes, but would you prefer that we go back to the divine right of kings?

    I would agree that women tend to vote for more social programs (particularly single women, as do certain other demographic groups). But where did the whole idea of socialism come from? Why did women (or anyone) have the opportunity to vote for candidates who supported such social systems in the first place? Karl Marx was not a woman.

    I don't at all mean to get into a pissing contest here. I don't think the world's ills can be entirely blamed on men OR women. Both genders have their fair share of idiots who will vote accordingly.

  10. Reading Thoughts on Female Suffrage was a real eye opener for me. There wasn't much this woman wrote back in 1871 that hasn't happened in our society today. I highly recommend taking the time to read it.

  11. What is interesting is you have had to find extreme examples (i.e. murder) to justify not submitting to a husband or father. Regardless of the extreme example, Christian men were expected to be responsible for the actions of their charges (wives and children). Long before a man asks his wife to murder, the local men have already found him to be a problem to their community and dealt with him appropriately. I don't find it silly that an unmarried woman would rely on her father for many things. I think you confuse dependence and submission in some areas. Submission isn't a dirty word. It's actually a powerful word when you are in submission because it absolves you of the responsibility of outcome. The results of decisions are completely the responsibility of the one you are in submission to. The male brain can operate with this type of pressure much better than the female brain.

    Philosopher kings can be much more effective at securing liberty for the people. Democracy never does. It always results in mob rule. The genius of this country was creating a representative republic and limiting the voting to those who were stakeholders in spending the money of the government. The first attempt of the Colonies to govern themselves was the Articles of Confederation which lasted only eleven years. The mob rule took effect in just over a decade. Karl Marx was no stakeholder.

    Personally, I think the Roman example with a Caesar and elected Senate has been the best example of securing liberty.

  12. SD: I will take a look at it.

    RLB: I can think of less extreme examples, but I think you get my point. We can all think of dirtbags who cannot take responsibility for themselves, let alone anyone else. (Of course the fact that there are women foolish enough to mate with and/or marry such dirtbags in the first place is another discussion for another day.)

    I don't know that I would like to be ruled by a king. I think the genius of our government comes in our system of checks and balances and the fact that our leaders can be voted out. It ensures that no single entity holds too much power for too long. Is it imperfect? Sure. Will it ultimately fail? Probably, as did Rome. Perhaps the next batch of humans experimenting with a new civilization will do better than we did.

  13. Actually, no I don't get your point. If you read what I wrote, I said even that case is covered. Feminism has removed responsibility from society's detriment (see SDs link).

    Once more than half of the people voting learn how to storm the treasury, it's only a matter of time to the dissolution of the country. It happens every time with a democracy.

  14. So what you're saying is that, prior to feminism, good men weeded out all of the evil men, ensuring that the remaining men were suitable husbands and fathers? Not a single woman in all of human history should have questioned or disobeyed her husband prior to the 20th century? Even if that were the case, how does that apply today, in a post-feminist society? If the evil men are no longer being weeded out, what does the woman unfortunate enough to have married him (due either stupidity on her part, or deception on his) do?

    On your last point, I agree. I just don't think that women are the sole architects and supporters of the entitlement mentality. There is plenty of blame to go around.

  15. Submission is what she should do. Especially if Christian. God promises blessings to those wives who submit. The elimination of challenges from life is not the goal of life anyway. Everyone has and needs their own difficulties in life.

    More to the point of voting, how much more would men take their responsibility for government when their wives and daughters ask them whom to vote for? If you want to see real men again, start at home.

  16. I suppose that is one area where I question my faith. Anyone who has taken a class in logic knows to be wary "always" and "never" statements. "Women must ALWAYS submit to their husbands in ALL things." If submitting to a husband supercedes doing something one knows to be wrong, that just doesn't make any sense to me. Why would God give women intelligence and the ability to reason if we are not supposed to think for ourselves? Your point on not having to live with the responsibility of your husband's or father's decisions doesn't negate the fact that you (and poteintally others) still have to live with the consequencs.

    With regard to real men, I am both fortunate and wise enough to have married a real man. Contrary to what I may appear to be presenting here, I usually DO ultimately submit to his decisions. Most of the time, after discussing a major decsion, we end up in agreement. For those times we are not, I trust that he would not intentionally make a decsion that would adversely affect us. Of course we all make mistakes...and he is "man" enough to admit when he was wrong and vows not to repeat that mistake in the future. Conversely, I am also "woman" enough to admit when he was right about something I disagreed with. That, in my opinion, is what a mature marriage is about.

    But yes, back to the larger points at hand. I would agree that feminist extremist philosophy (such as that I encountered in my WS class) has, indeed, had adverse effects on society for both men and women. I don't consider my right to vote an extreme example of feminism. I know SD doesn't like to "agree to disagree", but that's where I am with that point. I will, however, take the time to read her link with an open mind.

  17. I have a 165+ IQ. I have lived in several countries around the world. I have a degree in physics. When it comes to intelligence, I know I have very few peers. Before I make decisions, I submit myself to men I respect (i.e. my Dad) and I pray for guidance. That is my role according to the Bible. When I try to rely on my intelligence/logic, life doesn't work out as well as when I follow the submission and prayer route.

    SD and my marriage has become what it is by following the roles laid out by the Bible. We don't try to do each others jobs. It's not easy getting rid of the feminism that is engrained with both of us. We grew up with it being preached to us nonstop, just like every one else we know. But, it is worth getting rid of it. Life becomes clearer and the decisions in life are easier, especially as it relates to raising children.

  18. Northwoods, I'll be curious what your impression is of the way these women wrote in the link I provided. It's one thing I found so striking. Here it was 1871, if their vocabulary and eloquence was any indication of how well they were educated, we've lost ground in a huge way when it comes to the education of women (and men for that matter) in this country.

  19. SD: I actually would have been surprised had it NOT been eloquently written. Judging by my encounters with other writings from that general era (including family civil war letters), I would agree that there is definitely something missing in the way we currently speak and write. However, I would also venture to guess there are probably many eloquent writings in favor of things like slavery. Eloquence doesn't necessarily equate to being right. (Though it does make the consumption of dissenting opinions much more digestible, especially when compared to the drivel we see today, i.e., the idiotic FB rants you recently posted about.)

    With that said, and having read the writing in its entirety last night, my general impressions are this. While I do find some of its notions outdated, there are some valid points and accurate predictions. I am not convinced that women's suffrage, in and of itself, led to all of the societal ills so predicted. Though I would concede, perhaps, that these women may have accurately predicted that suffrage would serve as a catalyst to what we saw in the 1960's/70's.

    I do appreciate the section in which the writer acknowledges the plight of her working sisters and cites the need for some changes. It appeared as though like-minded women of that time sought to make those changes outside of legislation. Had they succeeded, perhaps we wouldn't have seen the "over-correction" that was the "modern" feminist movement.

    RLB: Though I am not quite MENSA material like you are, I am significantly (2 standard deviations) smarter than average. While I am thankful for this blessing, sometimes I think my intelligence makes my life harder. I tend to over-think and even worry about things that other people don't even ponder for a second.

    I appreciate what you said about seeking counsel with those who, while not as intelligent as yourself IQ-wise, have your respect. IQ and educational attainment are not necessarily directly proportional to wisdom. In fact, sometimes just the opposite is true. Some of the wisest people I've encountered in my life didn't even have a high school education. Thank you for reminding me of that.

  20. Northwoods,

    I think the point SD is making is that women posessed a much higher level of education before suffrage, as evidenced by the grammar, vocabulary, prose and ideas presented in the pamphlet. If we evil men kept women in such appalling conditions before they could vote, how did these women attain such forbidden knowledge as reading, writing and the liberal arts?

    On the subject of government bennies and spending, read the article by John Lott comparing state and federal spending levels before and after suffrage reared its ugly head.

  21. ducational attainment and literacy rates have steadily increased for everyone (men, women, minorities) in America since 1870.

    I'll look for the article you cited, but I have a sneaking suspicion I won't be packing for Saudi Arabia anytime soon.

    1. So the government tells us it is doing a great job? Take the link we have been referring to and throw it in front of your average woman. Watch in wonder as the eyes glaze over. Or any man, for that matter.

      If the knuckleheads from The Man Show can get women in Los Angeles to sign a petition to stop the suffrage, we are not more literate as a society. Not by a long shot.

    2. I think the statistics are correct to an extent (and if you can provide another, non-governmental source providing similar data, I'd be happy to look at it.) There's a greater percentage of people today who can read and write at a functional level, and a greater percentage of people who attain a high school education or higher than in 1870. In other words, most Americans today (regardless of class, gender, race, etc.) have obtained at least a basic education, and more of the population has access to higher education than before.

      Where I would agree with you is that we're not exactly comparing apples to apples. An 8th grade education then is not the same thing as an 8th grade education now. (I recall looking at an 8th grade test from 1800's Kansas...I wonder how many of today's adults could pass it, let alone today's 8th graders.) Someone with a PhD back then was undoubtedly exposed to more rigor and critical thinking than some of the so-called "doctors" and "professors" we see today.

      As I stated before to SD, I agree they spoke and wrote much more eloquently back then than we do today. Of course they didn't have everything figured out yet...I certainly wouldn't have wanted to go to an 1870's doctor--eek!

    3. Northwoods,
      Have you had the opportunity to look through this: The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness?

      It was something I suspected as an observer of everyday women; the obesity, prescription drug use and dependency, the stress, and, honestly, the belligerence and irrational behavior that has replaced the peaceful disposition that once, even in our lifetimes, could be expected with everyday interactions with random women.

    4. I'm sure it won't escape you, but my the point I'm getting at is that it is all failing (feminism) with regards to what is important in life.

    5. I did see your other post and I don't disagree. I am just not convinced that all of these things are the SOLE result of feminism. I would argue that feminism, and many other social changes we've seen over the past century or so (both good and bad) stem largely from the effects of the industrial revolution. That is where we saw the "backlash" to capitalism--socialism and its "sister" movements--unions, feminism, etc. (Though interestingly enough, I was browsing some other writings on arguments against women's suffrage, and some socialist-leaning countries in Europe were actually reluctant to give women the vote because they feared women would be too conservative.)

      Again, I think many social movements had reasonable goals at their inception. I don't think anyone would argue that conditions for African Americans prior to the civil rights movement were fair. What we've seen, of course (with regards to feminism, unions, civil rights, etc.), is a gross "overcorrection" in which equal opportunity and fairness aren't enough, and as pointed out here, the demand for equal *outcomes* becomes the priority. That is where things really start to break down.

      Interestingly, there is some evidence that younger women today are starting to reject the "supermom" ideal held by their Yuppie mothers. Respect for women who choose to be SAHMs is on the rise and I think the younger generations crave a better home/family situation than the ones they grew up in. Just one example of that here:

    6. A couple of the links I was talking about regarding socialism & suffrage not necessarily going hand in hand: (look at the last two "squares")

      Also this: "France was one of the last in Europe to enfranchise women, even though the demand for women’s rights was first voiced by Olympe de Gouge during the French Revolution, and it was in France that the most radical critique of women’s subordination was developed. French suffragists, however, throughout the early part of the 20th century faced opposition from politicians, many of whom were Socialists who feared women would support Catholicism and right-wing political conservatism. French women won the vote as late as 1944."

      Not trying to convince anyone that radical feminism and radical socialism as we know them today aren't pretty much one in the same, but the above are interesting historical footnotes.

    7. Reality of women's vote is quite different than "expert's opinions" of what the women's vote would be. Feminism has always been sought as an opportunity for Marxists to take control. This isn't a new precept. When stakeholders keep winning elections, non-stakeholders seek more takers to vote for stealing money from the treasury.

      You might be able to win a stand still about whether or not feminism is the root of this evil, but you can't win the discussion about how different taxation and politics would be without it. I would take a benevolent dictator every day over what we have today. I don't care about my right to vote on zoning within my city when compared to liberty in the areas that have been restricted as a result of Marxist philosophy.

    8. Per stg's suggestion, I took the time to read the Communist Manifesto in its original text (well, the English translation, anyway.). Quite fascinating, really. That and your comment got me thinking about how communism and fascism are often confused, as the most famous examples of both result in some heavy-handed dictator dispensing misery to many.

      Pure communism, of course, can only exist in theory. A leaderless, classless and "state"less society just doesn't work as it would invariably lead to chaos and anarchy. Societies need leadership and order.

      On the other hand, I don't know that there's any such thing as a benevolent dictator either. Some of history's dictators were better than others, of course...but absolute power usually leads to corruption, greed and power tripping to some degree. Humans, with very few exceptions, will exploit positions of absolute power for personal gain.

      Ultimately, there is no utopia. We humans have conflicting needs (I.e., freedom vs. security) and radical extremes of either tend to end in pretty much the same thing --the overlap between fascism and communism in practice.

      But I digress. My apologies to SD for straying so far off topic.

    9. There are far more examples of benevolent dictatorships in history than democracies that provide liberty to the individual. The founders didn't even contemplate a complete democracy. The complete democracy was the failure of the Articles of Confederation.

    10. Do you have any examples of these benevolent dictatorships that you'd like to share? I don't doubt that some existed, but I'd be interested in learning more.

      One of my problems with dictatorship is succession. Even if we could find that rare someone who wouldn't abuse his absolute power, who takes his place when he dies? Is the new dictator appointed (by whom?) or do we go with the family dynasty model of royalty?

      My understanding of the failure of the Articles was due to the weak central government having no way to enforce legislation (or even collect revenue for that matter). The states basically did whatever they wanted. I'm a little confused as to where you're getting this "complete democracy" argument as it relates to the Articles. My understanding is that the state legislatures appointed the members of congress; they were not elected by popular vote. Perhaps your argument lies with the way the individual state governments were run? I'm not very familiar with how that worked. I'll do a little digging.

    11. This is an interesting piece on the history of America under the Articles.

      It does touch upon several topics we've discussed here.

      I like this quote on aristocracy vs. republic:

      "In a state run by an aristocracy, a monarchy such as England's, for example, the virtue—the goodness or quality or character—of the state was determined by the ruling class. Ordinary people had no real civic responsibility except to obey the laws. In a republic, from the Latin res publica, the people are responsible for the virtue of the state."

      The argument can certainly be made that many Americans today are failing in that responsibility.

    12. The reigns of various kings, emperors, and czars can be used as evidence for the benevolent dictator. You can just look at Monaco today. As I said before, I prefer the Emperor/Senate model for government as the longer lasting and most liberty driven. Rome's model was without a doubt effective in stability and liberty.

      I disagree with your link's author that republicanism was such a new concept. He does mention many of the issues we have discussed including the need to have the voter's be land owners (stakeholders). That was a fundamental need in preventing the typical downfalls of a democracy. Have you read Plato's Republic? The issues addressing how best to govern have been thoroughly discussed for thousands of years. The problems that caused the dissolution of the AOC were due to its intrinsically democratic nature. Everything had to be voted on. Therefore, nothing at the federal level could get done. My reference to complete democracy may be better defined as voting on all issues. The mob rule mentality kicks in quickly with such a government. Nobody votes to tax themselves and they vote to take money from the treasury, which is the minorities money. The minority inevitably becomes the rich. Then, the house of cards falls.

      As far as secession goes, it doesn't bother me much. If an emperor is too oppressive, the people/Senate could kill him. Military coup is the most likely. When the US falls apart, it will likely end with a military head of state. Most of the Roman emperors gained and held their power via the military.

    13. I'd agree that the author was wrong to say the idea of republicanism was a new one (Rome existed as a Republic for a while prior to becoming an Empire.)I think it's fair to say, though, that it was a "radical" way of thinking at the time, being that it was such a huge departure from the way things had been run in Europe for centuries.

      I have given some thought to your "stakeholder" argument and I can see some valid points there. I'm just not convinced that the 1700's version of such (white, male landowner) translates well into the 21st century.

      I would concede that our form of government (representative democracy in which all adult citizens are eligible to vote) is probably more vulnerable to succumbing to something like socialism than some other forms of government. What I think has kept us from going down that path sooner was the emergence of a large middle class, which is what Marx failed to anticipate in his early criticisms of capitalism. Now that the middle class is shrinking, however, we see more instability, less upward mobility and more angry people motivated to "rise up" against what they perceive to be the "elites" (just as Marx predicted.)

      The faster the middle class falls, the faster our nation goes down with it.

    14. What is killing the middle class? SD will tell you it's Windex. Now, we are finally back to the original post.

      The nuclear family is essential to being middle class. What actively kills the nuclear family? Windex.

    15. Fitting that a product made in Wisconsin would be responsible for the downfall of western civilization. (Sorry, couldn't resist ;).

      I do see many of yours and SD's points and while we're obviously not in complete agreement, I now have another "filter" with which to view some of the problems in our society.

      Much like the fall of Rome, I don't know that there will ever be a consensus among the "experts" on any single fatal flaw responsible for our eventual demise. I suspect that (as with what I believe to be true in the case of Rome) it is likely a combination of factors coupled with certain accidents of history. Of course, mine is just one insignificant opinion among many.

      I do, however, appreciate the time you took to engage me and my insignificant opinions. It's good to know there are other truth seekers out there.

  22. This is one of the more interesting things I have read recently. Prior to reading this I had no idea that gender trumped intelligence.

  23. You get an F in reading comprehension. Authority trumps intelligence and gender.

    (Mat 8:5-13 NIV) When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. {6} "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering." {7} Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him." {8} The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. {9} For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." {10} When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. {11} I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. {12} But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." {13} Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.

    ...but that's just what Jesus said, so if you have some special way to deal with that go ahead. BTW, if you aren't a Christian, SD has already said this probably isn't the place for you.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.